Epistemology refers to the philosophy of knowledge and aims to address central questions of how we create new knowledge. All research paradigms can be distinguished in terms of epistemological assumptions, that is, assumptions of how knowledge is produced in the respective paradigms. Design science research (DSR) is a research paradigm often used in technical disciplines for the creation of artefacts. DSR has roots in pragmatism, where beliefs and theories are evaluated based on the success of its practical application. New knowledge is produced in DSR when original artefacts are created to solve a problem. The epistemological assumption of DSR can then shortly be defined as ‘knowledge through making’. At its core, DSR is goal‑orientated and its practical approaches are focused on delivering the product according to straight‑forward processes ‑ without being affected by human factors. This process of acquiring new knowledge is efficient but not necessarily effective in terms of capturing all aspects of the experience of the practitioner. Frameworks exist for the creation of artefacts in DSR, but the process of knowledge generation is not explicit. The aim of the paper is to guide explicit knowledge generation in DSR. The research question is “How can we make the process of obtaining knowledge in DSR more explicit?” DSR Frameworks are iterative in nature and focus on the creation and evaluation of artefacts. There is an implicit assumption that reflection takes place in these iterations. Schön, author of The Reflective Practitioner, writes that new knowledge is produced through reflection during and after an event has occurred. He also states that you can only have a complete understanding of a problem through the dual process of reflection‑in‑action and reflection‑on‑action. We argue that this also holds true for artefact design and development in DSR. A reflective DSR practitioner can explicitly indicate how knowledge is produced in the design science research cycle. The effective use of reflective practice changes each individual phase of a DSR framework from goal‑orientated to problem‑orientated. Epistemologically, knowledge is then produced through ‘learning by doing’, which gives DSR a worldview that supports reflective practice. The paper promotes the incorporation of reflective practice in DSR and provides a demonstration thereof in an example on the preparation of IT students for their chosen career.
{"title":"A Model for Improving Knowledge Generation in Design Science\u0000 Research through Reflective Practice","authors":"J. J. van Rensburg, R. Goede","doi":"10.34190/jbrm.17.4.001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/jbrm.17.4.001","url":null,"abstract":"Epistemology refers to the philosophy of knowledge and aims\u0000 to address central questions of how we create new knowledge. All\u0000 research paradigms can be distinguished in terms of epistemological\u0000 assumptions, that is, assumptions of how knowledge is produced in\u0000 the respective paradigms. Design science research (DSR) is a\u0000 research paradigm often used in technical disciplines for the\u0000 creation of artefacts. DSR has roots in pragmatism, where beliefs\u0000 and theories are evaluated based on the success of its practical\u0000 application. New knowledge is produced in DSR when original\u0000 artefacts are created to solve a problem. The epistemological\u0000 assumption of DSR can then shortly be defined as ‘knowledge through\u0000 making’. At its core, DSR is goal‑orientated and its practical\u0000 approaches are focused on delivering the product according to\u0000 straight‑forward processes ‑ without being affected by human\u0000 factors. This process of acquiring new knowledge is efficient but\u0000 not necessarily effective in terms of capturing all aspects of the\u0000 experience of the practitioner. Frameworks exist for the creation of\u0000 artefacts in DSR, but the process of knowledge generation is not\u0000 explicit. The aim of the paper is to guide explicit knowledge\u0000 generation in DSR. The research question is “How can we make the\u0000 process of obtaining knowledge in DSR more explicit?” DSR Frameworks\u0000 are iterative in nature and focus on the creation and evaluation of\u0000 artefacts. There is an implicit assumption that reflection takes\u0000 place in these iterations. Schön, author of The Reflective\u0000 Practitioner, writes that new knowledge is produced through\u0000 reflection during and after an event has occurred. He also states\u0000 that you can only have a complete understanding of a problem through\u0000 the dual process of reflection‑in‑action and reflection‑on‑action.\u0000 We argue that this also holds true for artefact design and\u0000 development in DSR. A reflective DSR practitioner can explicitly\u0000 indicate how knowledge is produced in the design science research\u0000 cycle. The effective use of reflective practice changes each\u0000 individual phase of a DSR framework from goal‑orientated to\u0000 problem‑orientated. Epistemologically, knowledge is then produced\u0000 through ‘learning by doing’, which gives DSR a worldview that\u0000 supports reflective practice. The paper promotes the incorporation\u0000 of reflective practice in DSR and provides a demonstration thereof\u0000 in an example on the preparation of IT students for their chosen\u0000 career.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84876820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The research process is complex, involving many conceptually different steps that require a variety of skills. For instance, early on in the research process the task of identifying and articulating a suitable research problem often involves, amongst other skills, a high level of creativity and critical thinking, whereas later on in the process, application of a suitable research method would require deep knowledge of the state of art in that methodology. As the techniques used by researchers to iterate between current discipline theory, subject knowledge and research methodology gets increasingly specialized, it is also becoming more opaque to people outside the research community. Management students with little or no exposure to research find this puzzling because they are being encouraged to do something creative and original, and at the same time they are expected to build on existing knowledge using a set of conventions associated with the chosen methodology. Business students in their 1st year face many new situations. Most of them have little experience of what research is about or the various elements that are necessary for a successful project. The teaching at school level mostly focuses on imparting subject knowledge and instilling basic numeracy and literary skills. It does not prepare them so well for setting their own goals and working independently ‑ the core of research. Traditional teaching methods can help them acquire the relevant subject knowledge and basic research methods. But putting these together in a piece of practical research requires in depth understanding and creative thinking. Problem‑based learning (PBL) is a way to help UG students at the beginning of their research attempts to develop the mindset and skills needed. This paper makes the case for introducing Critical Thinking skills to Business Management students in their 1st year, using a problem‑based Learning (PBL) approach. It assesses what was involved in developing and delivering such a course. Both staff and students found the experience challenging, but the overall response was positive establishing that the approach taken was fundamentally effective.
{"title":"Addressing The Challenge of Building Research Capabilities in\u0000 Business Management Undergraduate Students","authors":"M. Rich, Ann Brown, A. Banerjee","doi":"10.34190/jbrm.17.3.003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/jbrm.17.3.003","url":null,"abstract":"The research process is complex, involving many conceptually\u0000 different steps that require a variety of skills. For instance,\u0000 early on in the research process the task of identifying and\u0000 articulating a suitable research problem often involves, amongst\u0000 other skills, a high level of creativity and critical thinking,\u0000 whereas later on in the process, application of a suitable research\u0000 method would require deep knowledge of the state of art in that\u0000 methodology. As the techniques used by researchers to iterate\u0000 between current discipline theory, subject knowledge and research\u0000 methodology gets increasingly specialized, it is also becoming more\u0000 opaque to people outside the research community. Management students\u0000 with little or no exposure to research find this puzzling because\u0000 they are being encouraged to do something creative and original, and\u0000 at the same time they are expected to build on existing knowledge\u0000 using a set of conventions associated with the chosen methodology.\u0000 Business students in their 1st year face many new situations. Most\u0000 of them have little experience of what research is about or the\u0000 various elements that are necessary for a successful project. The\u0000 teaching at school level mostly focuses on imparting subject\u0000 knowledge and instilling basic numeracy and literary skills. It does\u0000 not prepare them so well for setting their own goals and working\u0000 independently ‑ the core of research. Traditional teaching methods\u0000 can help them acquire the relevant subject knowledge and basic\u0000 research methods. But putting these together in a piece of practical\u0000 research requires in depth understanding and creative thinking.\u0000 Problem‑based learning (PBL) is a way to help UG students at the\u0000 beginning of their research attempts to develop the mindset and\u0000 skills needed. This paper makes the case for introducing Critical\u0000 Thinking skills to Business Management students in their 1st year,\u0000 using a problem‑based Learning (PBL) approach. It assesses what was\u0000 involved in developing and delivering such a course. Both staff and\u0000 students found the experience challenging, but the overall response\u0000 was positive establishing that the approach taken was fundamentally\u0000 effective.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89815413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper proposes that social media studies could be complemented with Q methodology when a topic that plays out in social media is complex, controversial or sensitive to allow for deep‑seated, integrated online and off‑line perspectives. Although the Fourth Industrial Revolution brought researchers more opportunities and advantages to study topics that were previously inaccessible, using technologies for research does not come without challenges. This is especially the case with social media studies comprising large datasets and where it is not always possible to identify fake profiles, bots, spam or manipulated information without having access to advanced data analysis software. Another point is that views expressed in social media do not always represent offline perspectives. However, while Q methodology has, over the years, adapted its techniques to accommodate new technologies, more can be done to embrace a web 2.0 environment. Why and how social media studies could be augmented with Q methodology to reveal individuals’ perspectives and attitudes about topics will be examined and potential difficulties will be highlighted. Not yet a mainstream method, Q methodology combines the strengths of two robust qualitative and quantitative methods sequentially to reveal and isolate the subjective perspectives of groups of participants. This methodology could, therefore, be useful when a social media study puts forward novel ideas and findings that should be supported by offline views. In this regard, the paper provides some guidelines by referring to the five phases of a Q study and describing how a social media study could not only benefit from but also apply Q methodology to augment results. Supplementing social media research with Q methodology could be empowering and provide opportunities for further research and debate.
{"title":"Augmenting Social Media Research with Q Methodology: Some\u0000 Guiding Principles","authors":"Charmaine du Plessis","doi":"10.34190/jbrm.17.3.005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/jbrm.17.3.005","url":null,"abstract":"This paper proposes that social media studies could be\u0000 complemented with Q methodology when a topic that plays out in\u0000 social media is complex, controversial or sensitive to allow for\u0000 deep‑seated, integrated online and off‑line perspectives. Although\u0000 the Fourth Industrial Revolution brought researchers more\u0000 opportunities and advantages to study topics that were previously\u0000 inaccessible, using technologies for research does not come without\u0000 challenges. This is especially the case with social media studies\u0000 comprising large datasets and where it is not always possible to\u0000 identify fake profiles, bots, spam or manipulated information\u0000 without having access to advanced data analysis software. Another\u0000 point is that views expressed in social media do not always\u0000 represent offline perspectives. However, while Q methodology has,\u0000 over the years, adapted its techniques to accommodate new\u0000 technologies, more can be done to embrace a web 2.0 environment. Why\u0000 and how social media studies could be augmented with Q methodology\u0000 to reveal individuals’ perspectives and attitudes about topics will\u0000 be examined and potential difficulties will be highlighted. Not yet\u0000 a mainstream method, Q methodology combines the strengths of two\u0000 robust qualitative and quantitative methods sequentially to reveal\u0000 and isolate the subjective perspectives of groups of participants.\u0000 This methodology could, therefore, be useful when a social media\u0000 study puts forward novel ideas and findings that should be supported\u0000 by offline views. In this regard, the paper provides some guidelines\u0000 by referring to the five phases of a Q study and describing how a\u0000 social media study could not only benefit from but also apply Q\u0000 methodology to augment results. Supplementing social media research\u0000 with Q methodology could be empowering and provide opportunities for\u0000 further research and debate.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77429474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Theory and evidence suggests that returns to research and research and development are currently declining. This paper seeks to identify patterns in the use of business research methodologies in certain of the latest articles published at the forefront of the field of business research innovation, from its leading journal. This literature is used to identify the current front line of business research methodologies at the forefront of the field. Propositions are derived from novel theory, and are critically juxtaposed against identified topics and methodologies in these articles. In so doing, the conceptual distance of the front line of empirical research in the field from the radical front line of theory in the broader field is quantified. Methodological implications are discussed and recommendations are made for the development of a future research agenda.
{"title":"Business Research Methodologies and the need for Economies of\u0000 Scale in the Business Research Process: Harnessing the Innovation\u0000 Opportunities of Novel Technologies and Technological Change","authors":"C. Callaghan","doi":"10.34190/JBRM.17.3.007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.17.3.007","url":null,"abstract":"Theory and evidence suggests that returns to research and\u0000 research and development are currently declining. This paper seeks\u0000 to identify patterns in the use of business research methodologies\u0000 in certain of the latest articles published at the forefront of the\u0000 field of business research innovation, from its leading journal.\u0000 This literature is used to identify the current front line of\u0000 business research methodologies at the forefront of the field.\u0000 Propositions are derived from novel theory, and are critically\u0000 juxtaposed against identified topics and methodologies in these\u0000 articles. In so doing, the conceptual distance of the front line of\u0000 empirical research in the field from the radical front line of\u0000 theory in the broader field is quantified. Methodological\u0000 implications are discussed and recommendations are made for the\u0000 development of a future research agenda.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85559692","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mixed‑methods research designs are increasingly popular, especially in the management domain because they hold the potential to offset the weaknesses inherent in mono‑method, qualitative or quantitative designs. In entrepreneurship research, the domain in which this study is located, mixed‑method studies are conducted mostly according to a sequential‑exploratory design with an aim of developing and validating theory in a single research study. In some studies, the qualitative phase is used to develop a questionnaire, which is more common. However, the actual process of converting qualitative data into operationalised constructs and survey items is usually not clearly articulated. This creates an opportunity to contribute to a better understanding of the process of transitioning from a qualitative to a quantitative study. This paper proposes such an approach, using an example of a study of the skills entrepreneurs use to start and run their businesses. In the qualitative phase, interviews were conducted with 20 entrepreneurs and 6 national experts to discover the skills required by entrepreneurs to start and manage their businesses. Data analysis, using computer assisted qualitative data analysis software, resulted in nine groups of skills considered important in performing entrepreneurial activities. Based on qualitative analysis, the study provides a detailed account of the process of converting qualitative data into a quantitative survey questionnaire, which will enhance the effectiveness of mixed‑methods designs. The developed entrepreneurial skills questionnaire was tested and validated on a sample of 235 entrepreneurs. The article concludes with implications for mixed‑methods researchers who want to develop new instruments, and scholars conducting research on entrepreneurial skills.
{"title":"A Detailed Guide on Converting Qualitative Data into\u0000 Quantitative Entrepreneurial Skills Survey Instrument","authors":"M. Rich, Ann Brown, A. Banerjee","doi":"10.34190/JBRM.17.3.001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.17.3.001","url":null,"abstract":"Mixed‑methods research designs are increasingly popular,\u0000 especially in the management domain because they hold the potential\u0000 to offset the weaknesses inherent in mono‑method, qualitative or\u0000 quantitative designs. In entrepreneurship research, the domain in\u0000 which this study is located, mixed‑method studies are conducted\u0000 mostly according to a sequential‑exploratory design with an aim of\u0000 developing and validating theory in a single research study. In some\u0000 studies, the qualitative phase is used to develop a questionnaire,\u0000 which is more common. However, the actual process of converting\u0000 qualitative data into operationalised constructs and survey items is\u0000 usually not clearly articulated. This creates an opportunity to\u0000 contribute to a better understanding of the process of transitioning\u0000 from a qualitative to a quantitative study. This paper proposes such\u0000 an approach, using an example of a study of the skills entrepreneurs\u0000 use to start and run their businesses. In the qualitative phase,\u0000 interviews were conducted with 20 entrepreneurs and 6 national\u0000 experts to discover the skills required by entrepreneurs to start\u0000 and manage their businesses. Data analysis, using computer assisted\u0000 qualitative data analysis software, resulted in nine groups of\u0000 skills considered important in performing entrepreneurial\u0000 activities. Based on qualitative analysis, the study provides a\u0000 detailed account of the process of converting qualitative data into\u0000 a quantitative survey questionnaire, which will enhance the\u0000 effectiveness of mixed‑methods designs. The developed\u0000 entrepreneurial skills questionnaire was tested and validated on a\u0000 sample of 235 entrepreneurs. The article concludes with implications\u0000 for mixed‑methods researchers who want to develop new instruments,\u0000 and scholars conducting research on entrepreneurial skills.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91324131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing the quality of qualitative research to ensure rigour in the findings is critical, especially if findings are to contribute to theory and be utilised in practice. However, teaching students concepts of rigour and how to apply them to their research is challenging. This article presents a generic framework of rigour with four critical dimensions—Trustworthiness, Auditability, Credibility and Transferability (TACT) intended to teach issues of rigour to postgraduate students and those new to qualitative research methodology. The framework enables them to explore the key dimensions necessary for assessing the rigour of qualitative research studies and checklist questions against each of the dimensions. TACT was offered through 10 workshops, attended by 64 participants. Participants positively evaluated the workshops and reported that the workshops enable them to learn the principles of qualitative research and better understanding issues of rigour. Work presented in the article is part of a large research programme investigating the pedagogy of research methods in higher education.
{"title":"Using the TACT Framework to Learn the Principles of Rigour in\u0000 Qualitative Research","authors":"B. Daniel","doi":"10.34190/jbrm.17.3.002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/jbrm.17.3.002","url":null,"abstract":"Assessing the quality of qualitative research to ensure\u0000 rigour in the findings is critical, especially if findings are to\u0000 contribute to theory and be utilised in practice. However, teaching\u0000 students concepts of rigour and how to apply them to their research\u0000 is challenging. This article presents a generic framework of rigour\u0000 with four critical dimensions—Trustworthiness, Auditability,\u0000 Credibility and Transferability (TACT) intended to teach issues of\u0000 rigour to postgraduate students and those new to qualitative\u0000 research methodology. The framework enables them to explore the key\u0000 dimensions necessary for assessing the rigour of qualitative\u0000 research studies and checklist questions against each of the\u0000 dimensions. TACT was offered through 10 workshops, attended by 64\u0000 participants. Participants positively evaluated the workshops and\u0000 reported that the workshops enable them to learn the principles of\u0000 qualitative research and better understanding issues of rigour. Work\u0000 presented in the article is part of a large research programme\u0000 investigating the pedagogy of research methods in higher\u0000 education.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87086759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research is central to the life of the career academic. However, the framework in which academic research is conducted is not generally well understood and neither is it often articulated or discussed. The literature tends to rather focus on issues in relation to specific research methodologies and the evaluation thereof. Additionally, previous research argues that it is common for university academics to have little or no formal preparation for their role as teachers. This paper posits that the same applies to that of the academic’s role as a researcher. It cannot be assumed that the mere obtaining of a Doctoral degree, prepares the novice academic for a research career. Early career academics are expected to acquire an understanding of how to survive as a researcher through a process more related to osmosis than to the principles of academic discourse. This paper commences with an overview of the origins of the academic career and the doctoral degree. Thereafter, it introspects the requirements to be a successful academic researcher. Aspects of the academic researcher’s agency in relation to personal values, characteristics, integrity, research uptake skills, as well as the benefits and challenges of a research career are explored. By unpacking the salient elements of what is required to be a successful academic researcher, this paper provides a basis for those who are considering a career in academe to make an assessment if such a pursuit is feasible. In addition, the paper provides a yardstick by which early or even mid‑career academic researchers may judge their progress towards being a successful researcher, thereby identifying areas for improvement.
{"title":"Reflections on Being a Successful Academic Researcher","authors":"S. Pather, D. Remenyi","doi":"10.34190/jbrm.17.2.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/jbrm.17.2.01","url":null,"abstract":"Research is central to the life of the career academic.\u0000 However, the framework in which academic research is conducted is\u0000 not generally well understood and neither is it often articulated or\u0000 discussed. The literature tends to rather focus on issues in\u0000 relation to specific research methodologies and the evaluation\u0000 thereof. Additionally, previous research argues that it is common\u0000 for university academics to have little or no formal preparation for\u0000 their role as teachers. This paper posits that the same applies to\u0000 that of the academic’s role as a researcher. It cannot be assumed\u0000 that the mere obtaining of a Doctoral degree, prepares the novice\u0000 academic for a research career. Early career academics are expected\u0000 to acquire an understanding of how to survive as a researcher\u0000 through a process more related to osmosis than to the principles of\u0000 academic discourse. This paper commences with an overview of the\u0000 origins of the academic career and the doctoral degree. Thereafter,\u0000 it introspects the requirements to be a successful academic\u0000 researcher. Aspects of the academic researcher’s agency in relation\u0000 to personal values, characteristics, integrity, research uptake\u0000 skills, as well as the benefits and challenges of a research career\u0000 are explored. By unpacking the salient elements of what is required\u0000 to be a successful academic researcher, this paper provides a basis\u0000 for those who are considering a career in academe to make an\u0000 assessment if such a pursuit is feasible. In addition, the paper\u0000 provides a yardstick by which early or even mid‑career academic\u0000 researchers may judge their progress towards being a successful\u0000 researcher, thereby identifying areas for improvement.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85359585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract: Journal publications are an output of research though there is little research into the process that led to the outcome and the lack of discussion and debate surrounding the process leads to an allure of mysticism. This paper studies the norms of research through investigating how successful business researchers choose their research topics. In‑depth semi‑structured interviews were conducted with business researchers. Generating topic ideas by successful researchers were separated into two general sources: ‘Professional Capacity’ and ‘Individual Motivators’. The main Professional Capacity sources were students and previous research. These Professional Capacity sources can be used by an established researcher. The most valuable Individual Motivator is to read. Researchers also revealed that they chose topics they found intrinsically interesting rather than topics that would necessary have a significant impact on the literature. To achieve research and publication success, it is important to make research part of your routine and read, attend conferences, submit your work for review, and persevere.
{"title":"Sources of Research Topic Generation: Lessons From Proficient\u0000 Researchers of Business Management Disciplines","authors":"Adrian France","doi":"10.34190/jbrm.17.2.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/jbrm.17.2.03","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Journal publications are an output of research\u0000 though there is little research into the process that led to the\u0000 outcome and the lack of discussion and debate surrounding the\u0000 process leads to an allure of mysticism. This paper studies the\u0000 norms of research through investigating how successful business\u0000 researchers choose their research topics. In‑depth semi‑structured\u0000 interviews were conducted with business researchers. Generating\u0000 topic ideas by successful researchers were separated into two\u0000 general sources: ‘Professional Capacity’ and ‘Individual\u0000 Motivators’. The main Professional Capacity sources were students\u0000 and previous research. These Professional Capacity sources can be\u0000 used by an established researcher. The most valuable Individual\u0000 Motivator is to read. Researchers also revealed that they chose\u0000 topics they found intrinsically interesting rather than topics that\u0000 would necessary have a significant impact on the literature. To\u0000 achieve research and publication success, it is important to make\u0000 research part of your routine and read, attend conferences, submit\u0000 your work for review, and persevere.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77886187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Experiments in business research became more complex over time, yielding complex sequences of stimuli and measurements. This raises the issue of sequence effects, where effects are found only in specific sequences of the experiment. One case in point is factorial surveys. Here, presenting the stimulus is followed by asking subjects to evaluate several vignettes presented in a certain sequence. The researcher is interested in the effect of the stimulus on responses to vignettes with certain features. As sequence and stimulus can be made uncorrelated by construction, holding the sequence constant or excluding the sequence from the analysis seems to be justified when researchers are only interested in effects of vignette features or the stimulus. In both cases, even if the sequence is relevant for the dependent variable, correlation between sequence and stimulus, the necessary condition for an omitted variable bias, is absent. The effect estimated for the stimulus should thus be unbiased. We show that even in the case where stimulus and sequence are uncorrelated or the sequence is held constant, an omitted variable bias occurs when the effect of the stimulus in a vignette is in its magnitude dependent on the sequence in which the vignettes were presented. Such an effect would be modeled by including a sequence‑stimulus‑interaction term and the omitted variable is this interaction term, which is, by construction, always correlated with each of the constitutive variables. A simulation is presented to illustrate the problem. Implications for experimental research are discussed.
{"title":"Sequencing Effects in the Analysis of Complex Experiments in\u0000 Business Research: Mechanisms, Biases, and Recommendations","authors":"Peter Kotzian","doi":"10.34190/jbrm.17.3.006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/jbrm.17.3.006","url":null,"abstract":"Experiments in business research became more complex over time, yielding complex sequences of stimuli and measurements. This raises the issue of sequence effects, where effects are found only in specific sequences of the experiment. One case in point is factorial surveys. Here, presenting the stimulus is followed by asking subjects to evaluate several vignettes presented in a certain sequence. The researcher is interested in the effect of the stimulus on responses to vignettes with certain features. As sequence and stimulus can be made uncorrelated by construction, holding the sequence constant or excluding the sequence from the analysis seems to be justified when researchers are only interested in effects of vignette features or the stimulus. In both cases, even if the sequence is relevant for the dependent variable, correlation between sequence and stimulus, the necessary condition for an omitted variable bias, is absent. The effect estimated for the stimulus should thus be unbiased. We show that even in the case where stimulus and sequence are uncorrelated or the sequence is held constant, an omitted variable bias occurs when the effect of the stimulus in a vignette is in its magnitude dependent on the sequence in which the vignettes were presented. Such an effect would be modeled by including a sequence‑stimulus‑interaction term and the omitted variable is this interaction term, which is, by construction, always correlated with each of the constitutive variables. A simulation is presented to illustrate the problem. Implications for experimental research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86831626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Most qualitative studies in business‑related research have adopted an inductive approach, in that they explore specific cases and then extract themes, or statements that are more general, from this data. This approach has its shortcomings, including not developing a more systematic body of knowledge of behavioural and social processes that take place in organisations. In contrast, in deductive qualitative research, the theoretical propositions derived from a review of the literature serve as its departure point, informing how the data is collected. Later on in the analysis of data, the researcher uses the propositions to determine if the literature explains the case that was being investigated. Unfortunately, given the relative neglect of deductive qualitative research approaches, there is little guidance and few examples offered that illustrate the application of these techniques. This poses a challenge for researchers, who often need a greater level of structure when it comes to designing and conducting their research. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to illustrate the design of a research protocol that integrates two deductive approaches that are suitable for explanatory case study research, namely deductive thematic analysis and pattern matching. This paper develops a seven‑step process that researchers can follow, for carrying out this type of deductive qualitative research. Using extracts from a research study investigating the leading of organisational change, the steps in this process are illustrated.
{"title":"An Illustration of a Deductive Pattern Matching Procedure in\u0000 Qualitative Leadership Research","authors":"N. Pearse","doi":"10.34190/jbrm.17.3.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34190/jbrm.17.3.004","url":null,"abstract":"Most qualitative studies in business‑related research have adopted an inductive approach, in that they explore specific cases and then extract themes, or statements that are more general, from this data. This approach has its shortcomings, including not developing a more systematic body of knowledge of behavioural and social processes that take place in organisations. In contrast, in deductive qualitative research, the theoretical propositions derived from a review of the literature serve as its departure point, informing how the data is collected. Later on in the analysis of data, the researcher uses the propositions to determine if the literature explains the case that was being investigated. Unfortunately, given the relative neglect of deductive qualitative research approaches, there is little guidance and few examples offered that illustrate the application of these techniques. This poses a challenge for researchers, who often need a greater level of structure when it comes to designing and conducting their research. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to illustrate the design of a research protocol that integrates two deductive approaches that are suitable for explanatory case study research, namely deductive thematic analysis and pattern matching. This paper develops a seven‑step process that researchers can follow, for carrying out this type of deductive qualitative research. Using extracts from a research study investigating the leading of organisational change, the steps in this process are illustrated.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83470991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：